Signal-Copiahan. (Hazlehurst, Copiah County, Miss.) 1885-1888, 1887-11-24
THE HAMILTON CASE.
Decision Of the Supreme Court. The Case
Reversed &C to Eub.nEs and Affirm
cd es TO Hamilton.
THE Supreme Cosrf on .uoHSdg II,s
Rendered fn decision in the Vdn-
tsfos case, nnd for fac 6cnr6' OF
our rcadrrs ere f'r6Ifsh in fill.

havo attempted to accomplish is to
eliminate from the case all incompe-
tcnt evidence. and looking alone To
that which is competent to decide the
question:: Were the prisoners enti-
tied TO he bailcd on the legal evidence
before the Chancellor We forbcar to
comment on tho facts further than TO
SAY that they have failcd TO convince
MS that any person besides Hamilton,
participated in thckilling ofGambrcll,
and they have convinced us that IIamil-
ton, acting ON provocation insufficient
in law, but such as has often melted
to deeds of violence, saw his opportu-
nifty to confront his adversary alone
and got out of his wagon and killed
Him.
We reject alike the theory of the
prosecution (as to the participation of
several in the killing,) and of the do
fcnse Gas tn an attack having been
made on Hamilton in his carriagc,)
and believe the above mentioned view
to he sustained by Just inforcnccs from
tho facts. From which it results that
Euhanks should have beon bailcd or
discharged, and that bail was proper
" denied Hamilton. Whereof the
Judgment as To Eubanks is reversed
and vacated, and as to Hamilton it Ii
affirmed.
After Judge Campbell finished rem
dcring the opinion of the court, Judge
4 ,l,,anpto1 &c f,lINns.
concur in the opinion of the ma
iority of the court in 40 far rs it re-
verses the Judgment rs to Eubanks;
but dissent with entire confidence in
tho correctness of M conclusions in SO
far rs it ailiims the Judgment rs to
Hamilton. In the record before us
Eubanks, in NY Judgment. should
have been discharged by the Chancel-
Tor as innocent of the crime charged.
or il il were not for the fact that since
the trial below he has been indicted,
aud that n prisoner held under indict-
mcnt may be bailed but cannot bc un-
conditionally discharged on hahcas
corpus, should unhcsitatinely vote
to discharge him.
In ccnsidcring I'M application for hail
before conviction, | cannot forget that
the object of arrest and Imprisonment
prior To conviction il not to punish tho
accused hut to insure his forthcoming
to abide trial and the punishment that
may be inflicted upon him by the SEN
tcncc of the law after conviction. Nor
can divcst myself of the grateful re-
Election that in Il land of freedom it is
not ontil after conviction that the law
assumes the aspect of terror and OK
acts Internationally the forfeiture of
life, liberty ar property.
The laws which establish and reg
Mate the right tn bail are not doubt
ful or uncertain in this State. Article
|, section 5 of the Constitution is that
excessive bail shall not he required;
and all paisoLs shall before convic-
ton, be bailahlc by sufficient Surctlcs
except for capital oilrnses when the
proof is evident or the presumption
great" The simple and unabridged
language of this provision can mean
nothing more nor less than that tor all
oilcn>cs not capital bail before convic-
ton is n right of which no person can
he lawfully deprived, no matter what
the proof of his guilt may be. And in
reference to capital Oiicnscs it can
mean nothing else than that for them
bail before conviction is equally n
matter Of right also, except where the
proof of guilt is evident Or tho pro-
sumption great; or in other words,that
for capital o;ienscs before conviction
bail is IN unqualified constitutional
right and can be properly denied no
more for that class of oilcnsrS than it
can I've for oilcnses not capital, except
where the proof is of such nature Is to
leave no we'll founded or reasonable
doubt OF the guilt of the prisoner.
In capital oilenscs where the proof
leaves no reasonable doubt as to the
guilt of the prisoner, bail rs matter
of right is denied 10y law, and can be
rightfnlly granted only in exceptional
and extraordinary circumstances, such
rs protraclcd and unusual delay on
the part of the State in bringing the
prisoner tn trial; or such as lave AZ
fcctcd, ar are likely to seriously or ia
tally affect the health of the prisoner.
The first and humane policy of the law
il, that before con victiou, even in cap
itnl cases., where the proof is evil
dent orthe presumption great, the life
of prisoner shall not be destroyed,
nUl lis health permanently impaired
10y imprisonment and the denial of
bail, nor shall hr be held without
bail where bis constitutional right %
n speedy trial has been wanton!y, op-
pressivcly or unrcasOnably abridged.
But bail should not be granted on ac-
count of slight sickness,Or the danger,
suffering or Inconvenience commonly
incident to imprisonment, nor for de-
lays in the prosecution which are nee
esSary to afford the State reasonable
onnDrtuilitv In Drospcrltc tuirlv. tx